Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Anyone knows what this TY-300D target missile is ? Any link about it ? I want to know if it is a supersonic missile. The igla is impressive but the last missile launch seem to be different from the first.
+72
11E
lancelot
andalusia
Gazputin
limb
lyle6
marcellogo
Giulio
GunshipDemocracy
Cyberspec
Isos
Mir
KeMac
kvs
The-thing-next-door
Hole
dino00
RusMil
miketheterrible
David27mc
JMCR
sjosiowicz
amcm923
Sanctus Ferri
Arctic_Fox
franco
Zhongqing
russianrisk
atiboss
Cplnew83
magnumcromagnon
Regular
ult
par far
Captain Nemo
Walther von Oldenburg
Stiangul
higurashihougi
r111
zg18
Anas Ali
Werewolf
Zivo
Rpg type 7v
collegeboy16
SSDD
Stealthflanker
ricky123
TR1
KomissarBojanchev
Mr.Kalishnikov47
ahmedfire
flamming_python
George1
ehtesham
AlexanderGiorev
njb1
Austin
IronsightSniper
Viktor
medo
GarryB
nightcrawler
Russian Patriot
Farhad Gulemov
fabyak47
milky_candy_sugar
DrofEvil
sepheronx
Sukhoi37_Terminator
Admin
10misha10
76 posters
Question Thread: Russian Army
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
George1 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Never seen an SA-13 with what looked like one strela missile and two manpads, can some correct me wasn't so clear is was the just the mount for more strela missiles.
The SA-13 was clearly only expected to fire one missile so only one missile box was fitted... it normally carries four or six boxes with four or six missiles.
As I mentioned above the South Africans developed a version that could fire SA-9 or SA-13 missiles, but I am not aware of any versions able to fire MANPADS.
The SA-13 and SA-9 both had electronics boxes on them that could detect the low energy terrain avoiding radar used by low flying high speed aircraft like the F-111 or by missiles like cruise missiles avoiding terrain...
Such emissions are low power so cannot be detected at long range but good for cueing the system as the threat approaches and is fully passive.
Anyone knows what this TY-300D target missile is ? Any link about it ? I want to know if it is a supersonic missile. The igla is impressive but the last missile launch seem to be different from the first.
My first guess would be a ballistic target version of the S-300PM missile...
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
Isos wrote:Anyone knows what this TY-300D target missile is ? Any link about it ?
There doesn't seem to be anything on it in English....if there any Chinese members here they might be able to help
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It was a joint exercise so it was probably a drone target of some sort... I doubt they made up the name... it would be Chinas name for the target.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
GarryB wrote:It was a joint exercise so it was probably a drone target of some sort... I doubt they made up the name... it would be Chinas name for the target.
Actually target drones have official names too.
They are quite sophisticated.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6002
Points : 6022
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Tu300 Korshun you mean?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-300
Soviet originated UACV, They started to build it on Tu-143 . I guess this one was used as a target drone.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-300
Soviet originated UACV, They started to build it on Tu-143 . I guess this one was used as a target drone.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
I doubt. It is a chinese drone.
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Of course drones have their own designations, what I am saying is that some drones are dedicated drones specifically designed to be target drones and have only ever been target drones, while some target drones they use are ex aircraft... the M-23 is a MiG-23 fighter with anything valuable removed and replaced with ballast weights like avionics and IRST and radar and fitted for remote control flight and flown into an air defence exercise as a target to be shot down.
There is quite famous video footage of a Tu-16 being shot down by an Su-25TM using the Skhval-M EO system and Vihhr missiles... that Tu-16 obviously being a target drone aircraft too.
In addition to custom designed drones.... one of their oldest is this one which has been in use since about the 70s or before, the La-17MM target drone... from the Lavochkin design bureau... and the more common E95 drone... sometimes called Enix I think that is also widely used to simulate aircraft cheaply.
But they also use their air defence forces to defend against all sorts of munitions that are of course normally simulated with old obsolete SAMs, with the SA-1 being made in enormous numbers and plenty of other systems built since.
The SA-8 is an excellent drone system... it is fully mobile... you can drive it out onto the range to anywhere you like and it can launch up to six supersonic targets that can be controlled by the vehicle to simulate anything you want.
The seekers and warheads are removed of course and various different corner reflectors can be fitted to them to help them better simulate the target they are trying to represent, but especially command guided missiles are ideal as they can fly any flight profile you want with the launch vehicle controlling them... they have already been paid for and as I said they tended to produce these weapons in enormous numbers.
There is quite famous video footage of a Tu-16 being shot down by an Su-25TM using the Skhval-M EO system and Vihhr missiles... that Tu-16 obviously being a target drone aircraft too.
In addition to custom designed drones.... one of their oldest is this one which has been in use since about the 70s or before, the La-17MM target drone... from the Lavochkin design bureau... and the more common E95 drone... sometimes called Enix I think that is also widely used to simulate aircraft cheaply.
But they also use their air defence forces to defend against all sorts of munitions that are of course normally simulated with old obsolete SAMs, with the SA-1 being made in enormous numbers and plenty of other systems built since.
The SA-8 is an excellent drone system... it is fully mobile... you can drive it out onto the range to anywhere you like and it can launch up to six supersonic targets that can be controlled by the vehicle to simulate anything you want.
The seekers and warheads are removed of course and various different corner reflectors can be fitted to them to help them better simulate the target they are trying to represent, but especially command guided missiles are ideal as they can fly any flight profile you want with the launch vehicle controlling them... they have already been paid for and as I said they tended to produce these weapons in enormous numbers.
Giulio- Posts : 181
Points : 206
Join date : 2013-10-29
Location : Italy
Hi! Hello from Italy. I hope I have posted in the right place. If possible, how can you distinguish between Ukrainian and Russian serial numbers on a missile? Do they have different graphics or symbols, as for aircrafts? (I think yes).
How do Russian and Ukrainian serial numbers differ?
Does Russia know the serial numbers and expiration of Ukrainian missiles? (I think yes).
And, if possible, does Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine have the Tochka-U? (I think not).
Thanks for your answer.
How do Russian and Ukrainian serial numbers differ?
Does Russia know the serial numbers and expiration of Ukrainian missiles? (I think yes).
And, if possible, does Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine have the Tochka-U? (I think not).
Thanks for your answer.
sepheronx- Posts : 8532
Points : 8794
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 34
Location : Canada
Giulio wrote:Hi! Hello from Italy. I hope I have posted in the right place. If possible, how can you distinguish between Ukrainian and Russian serial numbers on a missile? Do they have different graphics or symbols, as for aircrafts? (I think yes).
How do Russian and Ukrainian serial numbers differ?
Does Russia know the serial numbers and expiration of Ukrainian missiles? (I think yes).
And, if possible, does Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine have the Tochka-U? (I think not).
Thanks for your answer.
https://www.russiadefence.net/t8774p375-russian-special-military-operation-in-ukraine-11#374770
Please read through this thread.
As for serial numbers - there are documents going back to the USSR that has every bit of detail of what has been sent where. This was proven by the Buk used in the downing of MH-17 that was pinned on Russia when the BUK in question was in Ukraine.
GarryB and magnumcromagnon like this post
franco- Posts : 6709
Points : 6735
Join date : 2010-08-18
Giulio wrote:Hi! Hello from Italy. I hope I have posted in the right place. If possible, how can you distinguish between Ukrainian and Russian serial numbers on a missile? Do they have different graphics or symbols, as for aircrafts? (I think yes).
How do Russian and Ukrainian serial numbers differ? Russians don't use this system any more but the serial numbers would be from the Soviet era.
Does Russia know the serial numbers and expiration of Ukrainian missiles? (I think yes). Suspect so as Russia inherited the Red Army archives.
And, if possible, does Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine have the Tochka-U? (I think not). No, not anywhere in service as the Iskandler missile replaced it in the Russian army. There would however be some in storage somewhere as the Russians don't throw away equipment.
Thanks for your answer.
sepheronx and GarryB like this post
marcellogo- Posts : 638
Points : 644
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy
How come that Soviet and later Russian went to a three vehicle platoon on both infantry and tanks, instead of four?
And how they use such a formation tactically?
They move or fire them all together or one by one?
I mean: in he west the platoon is spit in two section , while one move the other cover it and viceversa but with three vehicles how they act?
And how they use such a formation tactically?
They move or fire them all together or one by one?
I mean: in he west the platoon is spit in two section , while one move the other cover it and viceversa but with three vehicles how they act?
lyle6- Posts : 2190
Points : 2184
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
marcellogo wrote:How come that Soviet and later Russian went to a three vehicle platoon on both infantry and tanks, instead of four?
And how they use such a formation tactically?
They move or fire them all together or one by one?
I mean: in he west the platoon is spit in two section , while one move the other cover it and viceversa but with three vehicles how they act?
They use both I think. 3 tank platoons for tank regiments, and 4 tank platoons for motor rifle regiments. The three tank platoon conducts fire and maneuver within the company, so its like an oversized section. Each element has more staying power, and the whole thing is easier to control.
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
Why isn't Russian artillery using airburst shells on Ukrainian trenches?
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Firstly what makes you think they are not?
Secondly, most trenches built since WWI often have areas with top cover making air burst artillery less effective as the troops can move to the sections with top cover and fire from forward facing firing points at the enemy.
When the trenches have sufficient top cover... half a metre to a metre of soil on top is normally plenty then airburst artillery is no longer very effective.
The solution is delayed ground burst rounds of heavy calibre... the Tuplip and the the Pion being ideal weapons in this case but of course 152mm rounds are effective too.
Simply fire on a steep angle to land amongst the trench lines with a delayed HE blast round... the rounds will land near vertically and bury themselves into the soil by a metre or two before exploding... we are talking about 45kg HE shells with the 152mm rounds and 110kg HE shells for the Pion at 203mm and 130kg HE shells with Tulip at 240mm rounds.... all of which would send enormous shockwaves through the soil... whether it is loose or compacted the shock wave will shatter the bonds between the soil components and turn it effectively into a liquid. This liquid moves like liquid so any cavities like tunnels or bunkers will fill with soil... the weight of the soil means any humans there would be submerged in a liquid concrete like material that will set hard as soon as it stops moving... its weight will crush humans and you essentially would be buried alive unable to move a muscle because the weight of soil would be immense.
The more powerful rounds obviously will liquify the soil over a greater radius and also reach deeper into the ground but the most powerful shockwaves will go sideways which is why the Tulip as a mortar would be more effective even with its shorter range, its enormous bomb payload and near vertical impact means even a surface burst spreads fragments around in a circle very very effectively because the nose has the fuse pointing down and the tail has the tail pointing up but the sides are the case walls of the bomb lined with fragments to shower fragments sideways in a circle to get nearby soft thing like troops and vehicles.
It would happen so quickly you wouldn't even have time to shoot yourself in the head with a pistol so you would be unable to move and barely able to breathe with the weight of soil against your chest would be crushing in on you... once your mouth fills up with soil how long can you last... a minute of two perhaps... how many hours will it take to dig out out... perhaps an hour or two except everyone close by is probably in the same situation you are in hoping you will come and dig them out.
It is like an avalanche, but soil is even heavier than ice... and ice is pretty.
Secondly, most trenches built since WWI often have areas with top cover making air burst artillery less effective as the troops can move to the sections with top cover and fire from forward facing firing points at the enemy.
When the trenches have sufficient top cover... half a metre to a metre of soil on top is normally plenty then airburst artillery is no longer very effective.
The solution is delayed ground burst rounds of heavy calibre... the Tuplip and the the Pion being ideal weapons in this case but of course 152mm rounds are effective too.
Simply fire on a steep angle to land amongst the trench lines with a delayed HE blast round... the rounds will land near vertically and bury themselves into the soil by a metre or two before exploding... we are talking about 45kg HE shells with the 152mm rounds and 110kg HE shells for the Pion at 203mm and 130kg HE shells with Tulip at 240mm rounds.... all of which would send enormous shockwaves through the soil... whether it is loose or compacted the shock wave will shatter the bonds between the soil components and turn it effectively into a liquid. This liquid moves like liquid so any cavities like tunnels or bunkers will fill with soil... the weight of the soil means any humans there would be submerged in a liquid concrete like material that will set hard as soon as it stops moving... its weight will crush humans and you essentially would be buried alive unable to move a muscle because the weight of soil would be immense.
The more powerful rounds obviously will liquify the soil over a greater radius and also reach deeper into the ground but the most powerful shockwaves will go sideways which is why the Tulip as a mortar would be more effective even with its shorter range, its enormous bomb payload and near vertical impact means even a surface burst spreads fragments around in a circle very very effectively because the nose has the fuse pointing down and the tail has the tail pointing up but the sides are the case walls of the bomb lined with fragments to shower fragments sideways in a circle to get nearby soft thing like troops and vehicles.
It would happen so quickly you wouldn't even have time to shoot yourself in the head with a pistol so you would be unable to move and barely able to breathe with the weight of soil against your chest would be crushing in on you... once your mouth fills up with soil how long can you last... a minute of two perhaps... how many hours will it take to dig out out... perhaps an hour or two except everyone close by is probably in the same situation you are in hoping you will come and dig them out.
It is like an avalanche, but soil is even heavier than ice... and ice is pretty.
lyle6 and Broski like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2190
Points : 2184
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
Airburst shells against narrow slit trenches? Terminal case of brainrot.
If your trench is deep enough to hide a man standing upright the only way an airburst fragmentation would have the angles to hit you while lying down would be if the damn thing were somehow to explode right on top of the trench section you are in, in which case there's really not much difference between an airburst and a impact shell.
Of course the latter actually does some damage on the trench itself, while being at least an order of a magnitude cheaper, so you can shoot more.
If your trench is deep enough to hide a man standing upright the only way an airburst fragmentation would have the angles to hit you while lying down would be if the damn thing were somehow to explode right on top of the trench section you are in, in which case there's really not much difference between an airburst and a impact shell.
Of course the latter actually does some damage on the trench itself, while being at least an order of a magnitude cheaper, so you can shoot more.
GarryB and Hole like this post
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
If trenches were so easy to defeat why would any army bother.
Heavy artillery can deal with trenches but not deep bunkers, and heavy artillery is also slow even though it is all weather day night capable.
Imagine a tank with 900mm equivalent frontal armour and you have a heavy machine gun... repeated hits on one point of the surface wont eventually bore their way through and penetrate the armour... there is no chance of a penetration at all.
If you make the concrete thick enough and dig the bunkers down deep enough then conventional weapons stop being effective, though there will always be weak points like ventilation shafts and entry points... new concrete piercing weapons are interesting... perhaps the father of all bombs comes in a shaped charge version designed to dig fissures and cracks into the ground so follow up bombs can exploit the weaknesses, but most of the time it is easier to simply wait them out... Russia is in no hurry.
Heavy artillery can deal with trenches but not deep bunkers, and heavy artillery is also slow even though it is all weather day night capable.
Imagine a tank with 900mm equivalent frontal armour and you have a heavy machine gun... repeated hits on one point of the surface wont eventually bore their way through and penetrate the armour... there is no chance of a penetration at all.
If you make the concrete thick enough and dig the bunkers down deep enough then conventional weapons stop being effective, though there will always be weak points like ventilation shafts and entry points... new concrete piercing weapons are interesting... perhaps the father of all bombs comes in a shaped charge version designed to dig fissures and cracks into the ground so follow up bombs can exploit the weaknesses, but most of the time it is easier to simply wait them out... Russia is in no hurry.
GunshipDemocracy and Hole like this post
Gazputin- Posts : 354
Points : 354
Join date : 2019-04-07
how about slamming a few Iskanders vertically into those deep bunkers at Mach 5 to crack them open
and then drop a few fuel-air bombs on them straight after - to suck all the air out through the cracks
and then drop a few fuel-air bombs on them straight after - to suck all the air out through the cracks
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
That works when you know where they are, but it is easy enough to compartmentalise things so damage can be isolated and not spread through the entire system.
Ventilation systems can be designed to stop water from flooding and from poison or other gases being pumped in... a well designed bunker system could take years to take out if properly designed and properly stocked and they have been preparing these bunkers for quite a number of years.
Once you are more than two or three dozen metres below the surface normal surface bombing has no effect at all... the US dabbled in deep bunker munitions and they played around with all sorts of different designs but the fact of the matter is that the only sure solution involved nuclear warhead and essentially an earthquake attack that fills in cavities underground though massive shockwaves from nuclear detonations.
Ventilation systems can be designed to stop water from flooding and from poison or other gases being pumped in... a well designed bunker system could take years to take out if properly designed and properly stocked and they have been preparing these bunkers for quite a number of years.
Once you are more than two or three dozen metres below the surface normal surface bombing has no effect at all... the US dabbled in deep bunker munitions and they played around with all sorts of different designs but the fact of the matter is that the only sure solution involved nuclear warhead and essentially an earthquake attack that fills in cavities underground though massive shockwaves from nuclear detonations.
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
lyle6 wrote:Airburst shells against narrow slit trenches? Terminal case of brainrot.
If your trench is deep enough to hide a man standing upright the only way an airburst fragmentation would have the angles to hit you while lying down would be if the damn thing were somehow to explode right on top of the trench section you are in, in which case there's really not much difference between an airburst and a impact shell.
Of course the latter actually does some damage on the trench itself, while being at least an order of a magnitude cheaper, so you can shoot more.
You're the one addicted to copium.
Here is a "narrow slit trench"
https://t.me/boris_rozhin/46628
Its struck with moderate damage with 1 direct hit from 2nd shell. Soldiers in rest of trench survived. . First shell does 0 damage. If both shells were airbursting, everyone in that trench would be eviscerated.
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Most body armour has shoulder and partial arm protection and if they are wearing helmets an airburst artillery shell would need to be very close to inflict serious casualties.
If air burst rounds were so damn effective why would any soldier anywhere build trenches with no overhead cover?
Air burst artillery would need to be very precisely delivered to have any chance of effect...
If air burst rounds were so damn effective why would any soldier anywhere build trenches with no overhead cover?
Air burst artillery would need to be very precisely delivered to have any chance of effect...
lyle6- Posts : 2190
Points : 2184
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
GarryB wrote:Most body armour has shoulder and partial arm protection and if they are wearing helmets an airburst artillery shell would need to be very close to inflict serious casualties.
If air burst rounds were so damn effective why would any soldier anywhere build trenches with no overhead cover?
Air burst artillery would need to be very precisely delivered to have any chance of effect...
The modern combat helmet was designed primarily to shield troops hunkering down in trenches from overhead fragments, at least until they can roll on over to the nearest shelter where the airburst rounds are next to useless. Airburst shells are also typically made of preformed fragments (think steel BBs) to maximize fragmentation so while they can cause nasty wounds when hitting exposed flesh, even some layer of padding is enough to stop them, so the straps for your plate carrier should be a fine substitute if you have one of those high cut helms.
Again, the point of shelling trenches is not to outright kill the defenders or destroy the trench. Its to suppress the occupants, keep them pinned down in shelters waiting for the shelling to stop while assault teams move into position. It takes an awful amount of firepower to level a trench, but a few good men with a head start can easily bottle the defenders within their dugouts and kill or capture them using grenades and flamethrowers.
GarryB likes this post
andalusia- Posts : 728
Points : 790
Join date : 2013-10-01
Why are Russian tanks better protected?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/europe/russia-tanks-blown-turrets-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/europe/russia-tanks-blown-turrets-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
lancelot- Posts : 2698
Points : 2696
Join date : 2020-10-18
The Leopard 2 isn't any better in that regard. Try looking at a diagram and look at where the secondary ammunition is stored.
Right below the turret ring. There are plenty of images of blown up Turkish Leopard 2's in Syria with their turrets ripped out.
As for the Abrams, if it was facing a similar opponent, I doubt you wouldn't find a lot of destroyed tanks as well.
Also claiming the Stryker as a good example for anything is ridiculous. The whole program is a massive failure.
The MGS is particularly bad.
Right below the turret ring. There are plenty of images of blown up Turkish Leopard 2's in Syria with their turrets ripped out.
As for the Abrams, if it was facing a similar opponent, I doubt you wouldn't find a lot of destroyed tanks as well.
Also claiming the Stryker as a good example for anything is ridiculous. The whole program is a massive failure.
The MGS is particularly bad.
GarryB and Werewolf like this post
11E- Posts : 119
Points : 129
Join date : 2020-12-08
IIRC the Canadian Leopard 2 in Afghanistan had the lower row of hull ammo not loaded with live ammo. This of the risk of ammo cook off when hitting an IED.
In the defence we always tried to get a reverse slope, hull down position. Ideal was a position whith only the periscope of the commander peeking over the crest of the terrain. With the hunter-killer mode you could slew the main gun to the target, order thedriver to go slowly forward, the gunner fired when aimed and roll back. In the defence the Leopard hull storage was not so big a problem. In the offensive...... that was/is another story....
In the defence we always tried to get a reverse slope, hull down position. Ideal was a position whith only the periscope of the commander peeking over the crest of the terrain. With the hunter-killer mode you could slew the main gun to the target, order thedriver to go slowly forward, the gunner fired when aimed and roll back. In the defence the Leopard hull storage was not so big a problem. In the offensive...... that was/is another story....
GarryB, Werewolf, zepia, GunshipDemocracy and lyle6 like this post
|
|
|